The Rajasthan High Court exonerated 4 Doctors in an alleged case of cheating and forgery and observed that mere allegation of a signature discrepancy does not negate the integrity of findings derived from scientifically validated processes.

The High Court also affirmed that in cases where the criminal complaint is against the Doctors and the health care institutions then the degree of examination and process of evaluation must be on high pedestal where such allegations might be the product of afterthought resentment of affairs prevailed post incident of an unfavorable human expectation.

The Petitioner approached the High Court by filing a petition under section 482 CrPC challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the revision petitions filed by the petitioners while affirming the order of Cognizance against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Farjand Ali said, “In cases where allegations are raised against Doctors’ or against the Hospital administration for forging pathology reports and appending signatures by individuals other than the doctor, the process of taking cognizance requires meticulous judicial scrutiny, especially when the doctor has not refuted the authenticity of the signatures.”

Advocate Mahesh Thanvi represented the Petitioner while Deputy Government Advocate Nikhil Dungawat represented the Respondent.

The incident is of the year 2007, when the complainant-respondent no.2, filed a complaint before the Civil Judge (JD)-cum-Judicial Magistrate alleging that his brother-in-law was admitted to Escorts Goyal Heart Centre and he passed away during the course of his treatment. Post his demise, the hospital administration refused to provide complete medical records, including pathological reports, despite repeated requests. When the records and reports were provided on, the complainant identified discrepancies in the pathology reports more particularly regarding the inconsistency with the signatures so appended over the pathological reports. An expert suggested that the signatures were found to be appended by different persons over the reports.

The Trial Court in support of the complaint filed by the complainant, proceeded to initiate the process of taking cognizance by recording the statements under Sections 200 and 202 of the Cr. P. C., of the complainant and thereafter took cognizance of the offences and issued process against petitioners through bailable warrant.

It was the case of the Petitioners that as directors of Goyal Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., they cannot be held vicariously liable for alleged criminal acts without establishing specific culpability. It was argued the Rajasthan Medical Council's Penal and Ethical Committee found no mala fide intentions or misconduct by the hospital as well as with respect to the petitioner Dr. Ashok Kumar and there was no evidence to support the claim that the reports were false or forged.

The Bench observed that cognizance serves as a crucial gateway to the judicial process, ensuring that courts engage only when a case presents a clear and sufficient legal foundation for proceeding. “However, courts must exercise extreme caution to avoid being influenced by mere bald or motivated allegations unsupported by substantive evidence. Invoking presumptions under the guise of Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, at the stage of taking cognizance, is particularly fraught with risks…Relying on general presumptions at this stage, particularly in medico-legal cases, can unjustly call into question the professional competency and integrity of medical practitioners and institutions”, it added.

“Judicial restraint is, therefore, paramount at the stage of cognizance in medico-legal cases. Courts must ensure that decisions to proceed are grounded in demonstrable and credible evidence, such as conclusive findings from forensic or scientific tests. This approach prevents misuse of Section 114, which, if misapplied, can undermine the foundational principles of fairness and due process”, the Bench explained.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench observed that that the patient was admitted to a hospital where multiple diagnostic and pathological reports were prepared under the administration and supervision of the hospital itself. Finding that no reasonable assumption supports the contention that the medical staff, in collusion with the hospital administration, acted with such deliberate precision and intent as to fabricate pathological reports for administering false or misguided treatment, the Bench held that such allegation failed to align with the factual framework of the case.

Highlighting the fact that Pathological reports are generated through advanced diagnostic tools and techniques, the Bench said, “The mere allegation of a signature discrepancy does not negate the integrity of findings derived from these scientifically validated processes. It is also significant that the individual responsible for verifying and signing the reports has not disputed the signatures or claimed any forgery. This absence of contestation further diminishes the credibility of the allegations.”

In the case at hand, the allegations centered around the alleged fabrication of pathological reports purportedly employed to facilitate false treatment. It was emphasized that the existence of a 'false document' constitutes a sine qua non for invocation of Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). As per the Court, absence of the absence of corroborative evidence to substantiate the claims of falsification critically weakened the foundation of the prosecution’s case.

“Mere execution of a document; the pathological report by the accused, even assuming it was not signed by the same person whose name was inscribed there at the bottom of the slip, does not inherently amount to the creation of a "false document” as per Section 464 IPC unless coupled with dishonesty or fraudulence on the part of the accused and that too with intent to cheat the complainant. Similarly, for offenses under sections 467 and 471, the element of intent to deceive must be unequivocally established”, it said.

The Bench further observed that the very foundation of the cognizance order appears to rest on a mere presumption, rather than on any substantive or credible evidence. “Although this court is conscious of the fact that the comprehensive examination at the stage of cognizance is not warranted but the cases where criminal complaint is against the Doctors and the health care institutions then the degree of examination and process of evaluation must on high pedestal where such allegations like in the present case so levelled might be the product of afterthought resentment of affairs prevailed post incident of an unfavourable human expectation”, it held.

Thus, allowing the Petition and exonerating the petitioners from the charges, the Bench said, “The deviation from established judicial principles necessitates a critical re-evaluation to ensure that the decision to take cognizance is not only procedurally sound but also substantiated by the requisite legal framework and material available before the Court for taking cognizance.”

Cause Title: Dr. Ashok Kumar & Ors. V. State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:52439)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates Mahesh Thanvi, Nishant Bora

Respondent: Dy.G.A. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Advocate Nikhil Dungawat

Click here to read/download Order


Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.